Surender Singh Parmar v. State Of Haryana And Others

C.W.P. No. 6407 of 2024 -12024:PHHC:038344-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 6407 of 2024 Date of decision: 18.03.2024 Surender Singh Parmar .... Petitioners Vs.

State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present:

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondent-HSVP.

ARUN PALLI, J (Oral) A mandamus is prayed for commanding the respondents to refund the earnest money deposited by the petitioner towards a site measuring 1 kanal in Sector 21 (Part-III), Panchkula, in the year 2003, with 18% interest from the date of deposit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide application dated October 30, 2003 (P-1), the petitioner applied for allotment of a site and deposited Rs.2,00,928/- plus Rs.45,000/-. The respondent authorities failed to hold draw of lots. But, surprisingly the amount deposited by the petitioner was not refunded. And, it was only vide letter dated March 08, 2018, the Estate Officer, HSVP, Panchkula sent a demand draft No.375375 dated 17.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.3,43,486/- to the petitioner. However, the case set out in the petition is that the petitioner received the said letter later in the point of time. As a result, the validity of the said draft had since elapsed. They purport to have brought the matter to the notice of the authorities vide representation dated 28.05.2018 (P-6) but to no avail. Even the representation dated 20.03.

2023 (P-8), has failed to evoke any response. Likewise, the communication dated 12.07.2023, issued by the CM Grievances Redress & Monitoring System Haryana, reveals that the representations of the petitioner were being sent to the concerned office for DEEPAK KUMAR 2024.03.

C.W.P. No. 6407 of 2024 -22024:PHHC:038344-DB information and necessary action. But, yet the matter has not made any tangible progress. Thus, this petition.

Served with the advance copy of the petition, Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate is present in Court on behalf of respondent-HSVP. He, on instructions, submits that the petitioner shall be released the requisite amount, he is entitled to, along with interest @ 5.5% from the date the amount had fallen due, till its realization. And, necessary orders, in this regard, shall be passed within two weeks from today. Learned counsel for petitioner is agreeable to the course suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent-HSVP and submits that let this petition be disposed of in view of the statement made by him. In the wake of the position sketched out above, this petition is disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the parties.

(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 18.03.2024 deepak Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2024.03.20 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh